The next error of Sismondi, flowing from his erroneous theory concerning social income and product in capitalist society, is his doctrine of the impossibility of realizing the product in general and surplus-value in particular, and, as a consequence of this impossibility, the necessity of an external market. As regards the realization of the product in general, the analysis presented above shows that the "impossibility" is exhausted by the erroneous exclusion of constant capital and means of production. Once this error is corrected, the "impossibility" vanishes as well. But precisely the same must be said with regard to surplus-value in particular: this analysis clarifies its realization as well. There are absolutely no rational grounds whatsoever for singling out surplus-value from the entire product with respect to its realization. The contrary assertion of Sismondi (and our Narodniks) is simply the result of a failure to understand the fundamental laws of realization in general, of an inability to divide the three (not two) parts of the product by value and the two kinds of products by material form (means of production and articles of consumption). The proposition that capitalists cannot consume surplus-value is merely a vulgarized repetition of Smith's confusions regarding realization in general. Only part of surplus-value consists of articles of consumption; another part consists of means of production (for example, the surplus-value of an iron manufacturer). The "consumption" of this latter surplus-value takes place through its being turned into production; the capitalists, however, who produce the product in the form of means of production, consume not surplus-value themselves, but the constant capital exchanged from other capitalists. Therefore, the Narodniks, in speaking of the impossibility of realizing surplus-value, should logically arrive at an acknowledgment of the impossibility of realizing constant capital as well—and thus they would most triumphantly return to Adam… Of course, such a return to the "father of political economy" would be a gigantic step forward for writers who present us with old errors under the guise of truths which they have "arrived at through their own minds"…

But the external market? Are we denying the necessity of an external market for capitalism? Of course not. But the question of the external market has absolutely nothing in common with the question of realization, and the attempt to link them into a single whole is characteristic only of romantic wishes to "hold back" capitalism and of romantic incapacity for logic. The theory that has clarified the question of realization has shown this with complete precision. The romantic speaks thus: capitalists cannot consume surplus-value and therefore must dispose of it abroad. The question arises—are capitalists giving away their products to foreigners for nothing, or are they throwing them into the sea? They sell—which means they receive an equivalent; they export one product—which means they import another. If we are speaking of the realization of the social product, then we are thereby already excluding monetary circulation and presupposing only an exchange of products for products, since the question of realization consists precisely in analyzing the replacement of all parts of the social product both by value and by material form. Therefore, to begin a discussion of realization and end it with the statement that "they will dispose of the product for money"—this is as absurd as it would be if the answer to the question of the realization of constant capital in articles of consumption were: "they will sell it." It is simply a crude logical error: people lose sight of the question of the realization of the entire social product and shift to the standpoint of the individual entrepreneur, to whom nothing beyond "selling to the foreigner" is of further interest. To introduce foreign trade, exports, into the question of realization—this means evading the question, pushing it back only onto a broader field, but in no way clarifying it.[59] The question of realization will not advance a jot if, instead of the market of one country, we take the market of a certain complex of countries. When the Narodniks assure us that the external market is a "way out of the difficulty"[60] which capitalism creates for itself in the realization of the product, they are merely cloaking with this phrase the sad circumstance that for them the "external market" is a "way out of the difficulty" into which they themselves fall, thanks to their lack of understanding of the theory… But there is more. The theory that links the external market to the question of the realization of the entire social product not only shows a failure to understand this realization, but further contains an extremely superficial understanding of the contradictions inherent in this realization. "Workers will consume their wages, but capitalists cannot consume surplus-value." Think about this "theory" from the standpoint of the external market. How do we know that "workers will consume their wages"? On what grounds can one think that the products designated by the entire class of capitalists of a given country for the consumption of all workers of that country will actually equal in value their wages and replace them, and that these products will have no need of an external market? There are absolutely no grounds for thinking so, and in fact it is not so at all. Not only products (or parts of products) that replace surplus-value, but also products that replace variable capital; not only products that replace variable capital, but also products that replace constant capital (which our "economists," who fail to remember their kinship… with Adam, forget); not only products existing in the form of articles of consumption, but also products existing in the form of means of production—all equally are realized only amid "difficulties," amid constant fluctuations which become ever stronger as capitalism grows, amid fierce competition, which compels each entrepreneur to strive for boundless expansion of production, going beyond the limits of the given state, seeking out new markets in countries not yet drawn into capitalist commodity circulation. We have now approached the question of why an external market is necessary for a capitalist country. Not at all because the product in general cannot be realized under the capitalist system. That is nonsense. The external market is necessary because capitalist production is inherent with a striving for boundless expansion—in contrast to all old modes of production, limited by the boundaries of the commune, the estate, the tribe, the territorial district, or the state. Whereas under all old economic regimes production was renewed each time in the same form and on the same scale as before, under the capitalist system this renewal in the same form becomes impossible, and the law of production becomes boundless expansion, eternal forward movement.[61]

Thus, the different understanding of realization (or rather, the understanding of it on the one hand and the complete failure to understand it on the other by the romantics) leads to two diametrically opposed views on the significance of the external market. For some (the romantics)—the external market is an indicator of the "difficulty" which capitalism creates for social development. For others, on the contrary, the external market shows how capitalism removes those difficulties to social development which history has created in the form of various barriers—communal, tribal, territorial, national.[62]

As you see, the difference is only in "point of view"… Yes, "only"! The distinction of the romantic judges of capitalism from others consists in general "only" in the "point of view," "only" in the fact that some judge from behind, and others from in front, some from the standpoint of the system which capitalism destroys, others from the standpoint of the one which capitalism creates.[63]

The incorrect understanding of the external market is ordinarily combined among the romantics with indications of "peculiarities" in the international position of capitalism in a given country, of the impossibility of finding a market, and the like; all these arguments strive to "discourage" capitalists from seeking out an external market. In saying "indications," we are, however, expressing ourselves imprecisely, for the romantic gives no factual analysis of the country's foreign trade, its progressive movement in the sphere of new markets, its colonization, and so on. He is not at all interested in studying the actual process and clarifying it; he needs only a moral against this process. In order that the reader may be convinced of the complete identity of this morality in contemporary Russian romantics and in the French romantic, we shall adduce specimens of the latter's arguments. We have already seen how Sismondi threatened capitalists that they would not find a market. But he asserted not only this. He asserted that "the world market is already sufficiently supplied" (II, 328), proving the impossibility of pursuing the path of capitalism and the necessity of choosing another path… He assured English entrepreneurs that capitalism would not be able to employ all the workers liberated by farming in agriculture (I, 255–256). "Those for whom the agricultural workers are being sacrificed—will they themselves find any benefit in this? For agricultural workers are the nearest and most reliable consumers of English manufactures. The cessation of their consumption would deal industry a blow more ruinous than the closing of one of the largest external markets" (I, 256). He assured English farmers that they would not be able to withstand the competition of the poor Polish peasant, to whom bread costs almost nothing (II, 257), that they faced an even more terrible competition from Russian grain from the ports of the Black Sea. He exclaimed: "The Americans have followed a new principle: to produce without calculating the market (produire sans calculer le marché), and to produce as much as possible," and thus "the characteristic feature of trade in the United States, from one end of the country to the other—a surplus of goods of every kind over the needs of consumption… constant bankruptcies are the result of this superfluity of commercial capital, which cannot be exchanged for income" (I, 455–456). Good Sismondi! What would he say about America today—about America, which has developed so colossally at the expense of that very "internal market" which, according to the theory of the romantics, ought to have "contracted"!